2016 Environmental Indicators Report

˚C

CONTENTS

Water ........................................................................ 4

Land .......................................................................... 8

Climate change ......................................................... 10

Biodiversity ............................................................... 12

Urban development and the built environment ...... 14

Waste management and resource recovery ............. 16

Change strategies ..................................................... 18

2

INTRODUCTION

The City of Whittlesea has a long standing commitment to Sustainability. Council’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy (2012-2022) documents Council’s core aims, policy directions, strategies and approaches across seven priority areas:

Council recognises the importance of reporting outputs, impacts and outcomes of endorsed policy directions, strategies and approaches over the life of the Environmental Sustainability Strategy.

As such, The Environmental Indicators Report focuses on environmental trends over time at either the municipal, program and/or policy and corporate level.

The results of this Report will be considered in future Council decisions and will be used to inform policy direction and priority projects.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Water

Land

Urban development and the built environment

Waste management and resource recovery

Change strategies

“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”̶ William Thomson

Climate change˚C

Biodiversity

3

Our water reduction target:

Council will reduce its water consumption (in relative water use per person) by 25 per cent by 2015/16 and by a further 25 per cent by 2030 from 2001 levels.

Core indicator Council’s total water use.

Sub indicator Council’s total water use per person.

Importance In a growing municipality, the focus on sustainable use of our water resources is imperative to ensure water security for people and the environment into the future.

What does it mean? The diagram on the left represents Council’s total water usage and associated costs for the past three financial years.

Since 2013, water costs have increased by $492,687 and water usage has increased by 147,406 kl.

This is due to an increase in the number of Council operated facilities and services increasing water usage.

In the 2015/16 financial year alone, six operational facilities have been developed. This includes the Meadowglen Athletics Stadium, Waterview Sports Pavilion and Korin Korin Child & Family Centre.

Data

Data

TARGET

Water

1$702,988

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

281,482 kl

372,633 kl

428,888 kl

$1,094,531

$1,195,685

Council’s total water costs and usage:

Council’s total water use per person:

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Volum

e (L/p

erson)

2001/02 2005/06 2009/10 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Target

Water use (L per person)

Please note: there are only two established targets in the priority areas of water and climate change.

Council will continue to establish further targets across the seven priority areas.4

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Kilol

itres

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Building

Irriga�on (parks, playing fields)

Leisure centres & swimming pools

Other (public toilets and drinking fountains, miscellaneous)

Sub indicator Council’s total water use by amenity site.

Data

What does it mean? The graph above represents Council’s total water usage in kilolitres over the past three financial years. It shows irrigation is the biggest user of water at Council during this period, consuming 62 per cent of water used in 2015/16.

The upward trend during the 2014/15 year is a result of the construction of two new sand based ovals and the elevated watering regime to establish grass at the sites. The two grounds added to the overall water use for irrigation moving through into 2015/16. Significant upgrades to three sporting fields during the 2015/16 period also required elevated water use for the establishment of newly installed turf.

Council will strive to reduce water use on sports fields through various initiatives such as converting certain sports fields to synthetic surfaces or summer season grasses which require less water use.

12 bath tubs / per person

x 122015/16 =1,130 L per person

Water target Need to reduce water use by

What does it mean? The graph on the left represents Council’s total water use in litres per person (numbers of residents in Whittlesea) from 2001/02 to 2015/16.

The red line indicates Council’s target to reduce water usage by 25 per cent by 2016. This type of target acknowledges that as the population of the municipality grows so too does the number of new facilities and sporting grounds requiring water, hence Council’s total water use also increases.

As the graph indicates, the total water usage in 2001/02 was 1,507 litres per person with a peak in water usage in 2005/06 at 2,593 litres per person relating to a very dry year (rainfall well below normal average). Less rainfall generally leads to an increase in total water usage.

The trend drastically decreased in 2009/10, the second wettest year on record, with an estimate of 1,067 litres per person before rising at a steady pace and reaching 2,116 litres per person in 2015/16. Higher than average levels of rainfall generally leads to a decrease in total water usage.

The target for 2015/16 was 1,130 litres per person. Therefore, Council needs to decrease water usage by at least 986 litres per person to reach the 2016 target. This roughly estimates to 12 bath tubs of water per person each year.

Council’s total water use by amenity site:

5

(31,568 kl)Irrigated sports fields

using alternate water sources.

Irrigated sports fields using potable water sources.

(195,592 kl)

86% 14%

67%

33%Football and

cricket

Soccer

Sportsfields

Irrigated sports fields using alternate water sources by type:

Council’s potable and alternate water usage for irrigated sports fields in kilolitres:

Water1Core indicator Council’s alternate water usage - irrigated sports fields.

Alternate water sources include stormwater (ornamental lakes/roof or hard surface areas), tanks or recycled Class A, B and C water.

Potable water sources refers to water which is fit or suitable for drinking.

Data

Data

Water meter theftObtaining accurate and reliable water use data has been made difficult due to water meter theft.

On average, ten water meters go missing each year from Council’s parks, reserves and sporting fields. Some of these are repeat thefts of meters from the same sites.

Water meters are being stolen for various reasons. Melbourne’s three water corporations believe they are sold as scrap metal or used to steal water when filling swimming pools, water features and water tanks.

Each meter costs the water corporations up to $170 to replace.

Council is currently upgrading flow meters at each of our sports fields so we will be able to obtain a better record of the amount of water used.6

What does it mean? The first pie chart to the far left represents Council’s 56 actively irrigated sports fields. In 2015/16, fifteen sports fields used 31,568 kl of water from alternate sources and forty-one used 195,592 kl of potable water.

This equates to 14 per cent of irrigated sports fields using alternate water sources and 86 per cent using potable water sources.

The second pie chart to the left illustrates the types of sports fields where water from alternate sources are being used. As shown, soccer fields most commonly use alternate water sources (67 per cent), followed by dual purpose football and cricket fields (33 per cent).

Council policy supports considering the feasibility of alternate water use options in open space planning, design and operation.

CASE STUDYInformation:

An opportunity to utilise stormwater harvested from the newly constructed Melbourne Markets site to irrigate sports fields and parks was embraced with the construction of recycled water infrastructure beginning in 2012. This will allow for the collection and use of 30,000 to 50,000 kl of rainwater on the yet to be built Mosaic sports fields situated in Lalor.

Figure 1 highlights the locations where water is collected from the roof and hard surfaces of the Melbourne Market site. Once collected, runoff is then diverted to the Melbourne Markets water treatment systems and wetlands (Figure 2).

Figure 3 illustrates the current site where the soon to be Mosaic Sports Fields will be constructed.

Water collected from the roof

Water diverted to wetlands

Current site for Mosaic sports fields

1

2

3

7

Land2

Core indicator Uptake of Council’s Sustainable Land Management Rebate Scheme.

ImportanceCommunity engagement and awareness of sustainable land management practices can improve land productivity and capacity of the land to maintain important ecosystem services.

Data

What does it mean? The pie charts represent the trend in the proportion of land being managed under Council’s Sustainable Land Management Rebate Scheme (SLMRS) from 2007 to 2016. At present, the Scheme is open to landowners who own or manage properties that have 8 hectares (Ha) or greater area zoned for rural purposes and where those zones cover the majority of land. The pie charts show a general increase in the amount of land being managed with an SLMRS Agreement from 2007 to 2012.

Changes in the Urban Growth Boundary in 2010 resulted in a large proportion of land becoming ineligible for the SLMRS if the land wasn’t already on the program due to changes in land zoning. Therefore, the proportionate increase in 2012 may

Uptake of Sustainable Land Management Rebate Scheme (SLMRS):

be misleading as the amount of eligible land actually decreased.

In 2016, 36 per cent of eligible land was managed with an SLMRS Agreement (8,325 Ha). This is a significant decrease from 2012 which had 66 per cent of eligible land on the Scheme (5,459 Ha).

New guidelines implemented in 2013, allowed properties between 8 to 10 Ha to apply for the Scheme (previously only 10 Ha and greater). This resulted in an increase in the amount of eligible land but not a corresponding increase in uptake of the Scheme, resulting an overall decrease in the proportion of land being managed under the Scheme.

53%47%

62%38%

66%34%

64%36%

Area of land being managed under an SLMRS Agreement (Ha)

Proportion of eligible land on SLMRS

2009

2012 2016

Area of eligible land not on SLMRS Agreement (Ha)

* Criteria changed in 2013 to make more properties eligible for the SLMRS.

2007

8

CASE STUDYInformation:

This property located in Beveridge has been on the Sustainable Land Management Rebate Scheme since 2010 and has been managed as a vacant property used for cattle grazing.

Agreed commitments for the property have been to undertake ongoing weed control, allow for natural regeneration of eucalypt seedlings in strategic locations on the property and protect bushland areas. The SLMRS also allowed the landholder to maintain cleared areas as pasture for cattle grazing by limiting natural regeneration in other areas away from canopy trees.

The images from 2009 and 2014 show recruitment occurring around canopy trees, and also between canopy trees which will eventually provide areas of continuous canopy coverage for local wildlife and a greater extent of indigenous vegetation on the property.

Before recruitment - 2009

After recruitment - 2014

Minimal regeneration around canopy trees.

Natural regeneration around canopy trees.

4

5

9

Climate change3 Core indicator

Council’s greenhouse gas emissions.

ImportanceThe nature and severity of climate change can still be mitigated if people and organisations do their share to reduce their emissions. The City of Whittlesea accepts that it has direct responsibility for all greenhouse gas emissions generated by its operations, services and purchases and strives to reduce its impact wherever possible.

Data

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction target: Council will uphold a zero net increase in its annual greenhouse gas emissions levels to 2022, based on 2012 levels.

TARGET

What does it mean? Council’s greenhouse gas emissions goal is to maintain our net emissions at the 2011/2012 levels despite the continuing growth in Council services. A targeted program of energy efficiency works helps keep our emissions down, however when extra Council buildings and services push our total emissions up again, Council makes up the difference by purchasing greenhouse gas emissions offsets.

The graph to the left represents Council’s total greenhouse gas emissions in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from 2011 to 2015. Each financial year shown has a baseline of emissions along with the offsets purchased.

The trend shows how Council’s total greenhouse gas emissions rose over three years then decreased due to the energy efficiency work completed. The amount of offsets purchased changes each year to keep the net emissions constant.

Council’s greenhouse gas emissions and offsets purchased:

Baseline emissionsOffsets purchased

˚C

Thomastown Library with almost 51kW of solar PV on the roof.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Greenh

ouse

gas em

ission

s - to

nnes

CO₂e

Target

10

Sub indicator Greenhouse gas emissions by source.

Core indicator Mitigation and renewable energy.

Data Data

What does it mean? The total emissions from all sources tend to increase each year as Council services grow. Energy efficiency activities such as the Street Light Bulk Replacement Project, building improvement works and solar power installations have each helped to counter this trend.

In 2014/15, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions came from the use of our buildings, which together accounted for 40.5 per cent of our emissions in 2014/15, followed by street lights which accounted for 38.6 per cent.

Since 2011, approximately 4,245 tonnes of C02e have been avoided through Council targeted activities. This includes the replacement of around 6,500 street lights, energy efficiency upgrades in our community buildings, and more than 255kW of solar power installed.

What does it mean?

Emissions by source:

12kW

2011/12 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Total Solar PV installed 2011-16: 255kW

Nil

2012/13

28kW 64kW 151kW

116 CO₂e

2011/12 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

48 CO₂e

2012/13

2,142 CO₂e 922 CO₂e 1,017 CO₂e

Total tonnes CO₂e mitigated 2011-16: 4,245 CO₂e2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

Electricity-street lighting

Electricity & gas use Transport fuels Other

Greenh

ouse

gas em

ission

s - to

nnes

CO₂e

11

Biodiversity4

Core indicator Rural properties impacted by weed species.

ImportanceThere are opportunities for maintaining and improving biodiversity within the City of Whittlesea by managing key threats to biodiversity such as pest plant and animal invasion. Mapping the spread of weeds enables the development of targeted policies and programs to eradicate weeds through sustainable land management practices, education and compliance.

Data

60%of proper�es mapped for Blackberry in 2008 have no visible infesta�on in 2016 (115 out of 193 proper�es).

80%of proper�es mapped for Ar�choke Thistle in 2008 have no visible infesta�on in 2016 (89 out of 110 proper�es).

84%of proper�es mapped for Gorse in 2008 have no visible infesta�on in 2016(21 out of 25 proper�es).

What does it mean? These illustrations represent the trend in rural properties impacted by three key weed species since 2008. As shown, there have been a number of successes through better land management and a general decrease in the number of rural properties impacted by Blackberry, Artichoke Thistle and Gorse.

12

CASE STUDYPest plant control:

The City of Whittlesea has a Pest Plant Local Law (2014) which requires landowners to control listed weed species when asked to do so by an authorised officer. Council runs an Education and Compliance Program annually for several of the listed species, actively promoting landscape-scale control of priority environmental and agricultural weeds across the municipality.

On-going Blackberry control program with VicTrack

Council is working closely with VicTrack as the organisation continues to manage Blackberry along stretches of their land south of the Whittlesea township. Figures 6 and 7 show a section of the rail reserve before and after the program.

Rail reserves such as this one can be important areas for the movement of flora and fauna. Blackberry provides shelter for pest animals such as foxes and rabbits which have a detrimental impact on native biodiversity.

Blackberry before - 13/12/2011

6

Blackberry after - 27/09/2016

7

Artichoke Thistle before - 16/09/2013

8

Artichoke Thistle after - 27/09/2016

9

Artichoke Thistle control on private land at Donnybrook

Figures 8 and 9 show the before and after photos of an Artichoke Thistle control program on private property at Donnybrook initiated as part of Councils Education and Compliance Program. Removing weeds on this rural property improves biodiversity outcomes and land productivity. Controlling Artichoke Thistle improves pasture health, and is the first step towards land rehabilitation. This land owner has now created opportunities for revegetation to enhance biodiversity values.

13

Urban development and the built environment

5Core indicator Mode of travel to work.

ImportanceWell planned communities have less impact on the natural environment, are easier to live in and are built to be resilient to the impacts of climate change while fostering increased community connectedness. Local government has the opportunity to address sustainability through its role as a planning authority and as a responsible authority in development matters. Urban development that is not driven by forward planning can threaten the development of sustainable communities. Timely delivery of transport infrastructure and an efficient public transport network enables access to local jobs, broad economic benefits and the development of sustainable communities.

Data

Data

What does it mean? Consistent with the results recorded in previous years over a long period of time, the overwhelming majority of respondents travelled to work by car, either as a driver (82.2 per cent up from 80.0 per cent) or as a passenger (3.6 per cent up from 2.7 per cent).

A little more than ten percent (12.6 per cent down from 15.4 per cent) of respondents travelled to work by a form of public transport, with the majority of these travelling to work by a combination of car and public transport or by train alone.

There is a very low proportion of respondents travelling to work by walking (0.7 per cent) or by bicycle either solely or in combination with another form of transport (1.2 per cent).

Sub indicatorTypes of transport used for non-work trips.

Method of journey to work also varies significantly depending on the region of employment. For instance, 84 per cent of respondents who work locally drive a car to work whilst only 59 per cent of respondents who work in inner Melbourne drive to work.

Car (as

driver)

Car & public

transp

ortTra

in

Car (as

passenge

r)

Mul�ple public tra

nsport Bus

Walking

Bicycle

& public

transp

ort

Car & bicy

cle Tram

Bicycle

Community tra

nsport

Other

Perce

ntag

e of r

espo

nden

ts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mode of travel to work:

Types of transport used for non-work/study related trips:

2016

2015

20162015

2014

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Car (as driver)

Train

Bus

Walking

Tram

Bicycle

Car (as passenger)

Percentage of respondents

14

Data What does it mean?The 2016 results are very consistent with those recorded in 2014 and 2015, suggesting that the basic pattern of the use of transport means within the municipality has remained relatively stable over the last three years.

Private motor vehicles continue to dominate the forms of transport used within the municipality. A little more than half of the respondents (55.5 per cent down from 58.6 per cent) identified as a car driver and a little more than one-third (36.7 per cent, same as in 2015) identified as a car passenger for transport they have used in the last three months for non-work related trips.

Public transport has consistently been used by a smaller proportion of respondents for non-work or study related trips. Approximately one quarter (24.7 per cent, up from 22.7 per cent) travel by train, a little more than 10 per cent (12.1 per cent up from 11 per cent) travel by bus, and less than 10 per cent (7 per cent up from 6.8 per cent) travel by tram.

Consistent with the results recorded in 2014 and 2015, approximately one fifth (20.3 per cent up from 19.6 per cent) travel to non-work or study related destinations by walking.

Overwhelmingly the most common reasons for cycling were for leisure and fitness reasons, rather than to travel to specific destinations.

What does it mean? The graph above represents the number of properties in each established area which are in walking distance to public transport. Walkability is a term used which measures the effectiveness of community design in promoting walking and bicycling as alternatives.

Residential properties within walkable catchments fit the following:1. within 400 metres of bus and 500 metres of Smart Bus stops2. within 800 metres from railway stations3. within 600 metres from tram stops.

As the graph illustrates, local bus stops represent the form of public transport with the highest percentage of dwellings within walkable distance in the established areas.

Bundoora West has the highest percentage of dwellings within walking distance to smart bus stops out of all established areas (46.2 per cent)

In regards to Railway stations, Thomastown has the highest percentage of dwellings within the walking distance (23.5 per cent), followed by Lalor (18.3 per cent) and Epping (9.1 per cent).

Tram lines are only available to Bundoora North, Bundoora West and Mill Park South.

Core indicator Total dwellings within walkable distance of public transport in established areas.

ImportanceWalkability to public transport is recognised as a major barrier to people choosing it as a form of daily transport. Local government has the opportunity to address sustainability through its role in improving access to public transport (via footpaths, local roads) and advocacy for better public transport.

A lack of forward planning can threaten the development of sustainable communities. Transport infrastructure not provided in time to meet the needs of the community is a major threat to sustainable communities.

Percentage of dwellings within walkable distance of public transport in established areas:

Perc

entag

e of d

wellin

gs

SuburbBundoora North

Bundoora WestEpping

Lalor

Mill Park North

Mill Park South

South Morang

Thomastown

Railway sta�on

Smart bus

Local bus

Tram line0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

15

Waste management and resource recovery

6Core indicator Total waste per household including waste to landfill and waste diverted from landfill and recycled.

ImportanceA high level of consumption, leading to increased waste is common in developed countries. The management of waste is a major component of Council’s annual budget and is carefully managed to provide optimal savings and also benefit the community and the environment. Monitoring and evaluation of data is integral to this process. Ultimately every waste material can be recycled – but at a cost. It is now argued that the most sustainable approach to waste management should integrate social, economic and environmental factors to determine the optimal net-community benefit.

Data

What does it mean? The graph above represents the total waste produced per household (in kg) within the last five financial years. One portion shows the amount of waste sent to landfill, while the other portion shows the amount of waste diverted from landfill for recycling.

The trend shows that there is a gradual decrease in household waste to landfill over the last six financial years. This may be due to Council’s educational programs and community engagement which has allowed the community to become more conscious of recycling options.

By weight, food was the most prevalent material in the garbage stream, accounting for approximately 45 per cent of all materials.

Note: the data for all waste indicators are derived from the annual Domestic Waste and Recycling Audit and provides a snapshot of the domestic kerbside

Core indicatorWaste contamination per household including material contaminants in recycling bins and recyclable materials (resource loss) in garbage bins.

ImportanceComingled recyclable material is the most common type of waste collected by households. There is an average amount of 13 per cent of materials incorrectly disposed of within the general waste bin that can be recycled. There is also an amount of material contaminants in the recycling bins leading to this resource being re-directed to landfill. Both of these outcomes are a resource loss for the community and an added cost to the environment. Council has a role in addressing this through community education.

garbage and recycling streams at the time the audit is undertaken.

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

Total

was

te (k

g)F inancial year2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Waste diverted from landfill (kg/household)

Waste to landfill (kg/household)

Total waste per household 2011/12 - 2015/16:

16

Data Data

What does it mean? The graph above represents the percentage of contamination in weight per household (waste that does not belong in recycle bins) over the past ten financial years.

On average, the sample households presented 8 kg of materials to the recycling stream per fortnight and roughly 12 per cent of this is considered to be material contaminants.

Residual items, food and bagged domestic rubbish were the most prevalent contaminants in the recycling bins.

Over the past eight years the trend has remained relatively consistent. This could be attributed to the consistent ‘Recycle Right’ message that Council has communicated to residents through face to face education and community engagement.

What does it mean? The graph above shows the amount of recyclables (resource loss) in the garbage stream since 2009. This is per household and is measured in weight (kg).

The average rate of resource loss in the garbage stream since 2009 is approximately 19 per cent.

Garden waste was the highest source of resource lost (31 per cent) followed by paper and cardboard (27 per cent).

Council and Visy have recently collaborated on a program to reduce the amount of recyclable materials lost in the garbage stream through the existing Bin Inspection Program which was originally introduced to educate residents to ‘Recycle Right’.

The Program now inspects residential garbage bins for the presence of recyclable materials and aims to educate residents to reduce valuable resource loss in the garbage stream.

Some factors that may influence resource loss in the City of Whittlesea include:

1. Significant population growth in the municipality2. Language barriers with culturally and linguistically diverse residents living in the municipality3. Changes in the types of packaging used for foods and goods4. Ongoing confusion of recyclables in plastic bags being accepted for recycling5. Lack of personal responsibility.

of household recycling is considered to be material contaminants, eg. food & bagged domes�c rubbish.

Average recycling per households /

per fortnight

8kg 12%

Material contaminants in recycling bins: Recyclable materials (resource loss) in garbage bins:

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Perce

ntag

e of c

ontam

inated

weig

ht pe

r hou

seho

ld

2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Reso

urce

loss

per h

ouse

hold

each

year

(kg)

0kg

5kg

10kg

15kg

20kg

25kg

30kg

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

17

Change strategies

7Core indicator Self-reported environmental behaviours.

Importance Council should have a positive influence on the communities shift to being more sustainable through leading by example, effectively communicating, providing resources, services and programming. It is important that Council monitors and evaluates the community’s progress towards sustainability to improve its performance as a provider, facilitator and advocate for the community in environmental sustainability.

Data

What does it mean? The graph represents the trend in self-reported environmental behaviours out of 1017 surveyed households in 2016. There are 14 different environmental behaviours along with the percentages of the most and least common behaviours.

Turning off lights and appliances is the highest reported environmental behaviour with 79 per cent.

This is closely followed by using water efficient shower heads (67 per cent) and energy efficient lights (64 per cent).

Car-pooling to work or study is the lowest reported behaviour (9 per cent).

In comparison to the 2015 Annual Household Survey,

there was a statistically significant decline in the proportion of respondent households participating in the following two environmental initiatives: 1. Turn off lights and appliances – down from 86

per cent to 79 per cent2. Re-use grey water on garden – down from 24

per cent to 20 per cent.

Increases in environmental behaviour since 2015 include: 1. Having a low water use garden – up from 32

per cent to 56 per cent. 2. Purchase of sustainable products – up from

36 per cent to 37 per cent.

Type

of en

viron

ment

al be

havio

ur

Percentage of surveyed households

Grow fruit and vegetables

17%Install solar panels

44%Install insula�on ba�s

79%Turn off lights and appliances not in use67%Use water efficient showerheads

19%Compos�ng or worm farming

37%Buy organic and/or local produce

37%

29%Use rain water tanks

20%Re-use grey water on garden

56%Have a low water use garden

37%Purchase sustainable products

43%Reduce heat transfer from windows

Car pool to work or study 9%

64%Install energy efficient lights

Self-reported environmental behaviour 2016:

18

Data

What does it mean? This map illustrates the number of people that participated in sustainability related activities within the last three financial years across the municipality. Activities are environmentally themed and include training workshops, events, festivals, tours and celebrations.

As the map shows, the South West district total of 7,886 participants has the highest number of residents participating in environmental activities since 2013. This could be attributed to the location of Whittlesea’s annual Community Festival, of which Sustainability and Heritage Lane is a key feature. In this case a proportion of the overall festival attendance has been included in the data.

The surge in the number of events and increased participation in 2014/15 can be attributed to growth and establishment of new communities in the Central West and Central East Districts, and new programs such as Agribusiness (particularly in the Rural North), as well as Healthy Together Whittlesea Health Champions, and the staff environment group Green CoW events being offered to the whole community.

The Growth North (total of 35 participants) has the least amount of participants in sustainable activities within the last three financial years.

Note: the number of Community Festival goers each year has the ability to skew data. Being an outdoor event, participation in the festival is weather dependent i.e. in 2014 it was a wet day, whereas in 2015 it was sunny and warm.

Core indicatorCommunity participation in sustainability activities.

ImportanceCouncil should have a positive influence on the communities shift to being more sustainable through encouraging and supporting the community to participate in its environmental education and conservation activities.

Community participation in sustainability activities:

2,078

2,955

2,853

54

323

146

226

2013/14

Number of a�endees per district:

2014/15

2015/16

866

545

340

677

504

0

35

0

24

223

224

Rural North

Central East

South East South West

Central West

Growth North

Sign making event at Lalor Community Garden.

19

Visit usOpening hours: Monday to Friday, 8.30am-5pmCouncil Offices 25 Ferres BoulevardSouth Morang VIC 3752

Call usPhone: 9217 2170National Relay Service: 133 677(ask for 9217 2170)Multilingual phone line: If you speak a language other then English, call us on 9679 9880

Email usinfo@whittlesea.vic.gov.au

Visit our websitewww.whittlesea.vic.gov.au

Postal addressCity of WhittleseaLocked Bag 1Bundoora MDC VIC 3083

Enquiries Phone: 9217 2170 (ask for Sustainability Planning Department) or email sustainability@whittlesea.vic.gov.au